Federal immigration officers have been ordered by the Obama Administration to release illegal immigrants arrested for violent crimes as long as they claim to be “dreamers” who came to the U.S. as children and are being allowed to remain in the country under a new policy.

The astounding directive was made public by a pair of officials who work for separate front-line agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Border Patrol. The men, longtime agents, are also union heads who represent thousands of immigration officers around country.

Federal officers say no proof is required and the amnesty is being granted based solely on individuals’ claims. “What we are seeing so far concerns us greatly,” said Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council and a veteran ICE agent himself. “”Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything…. At this point we don’t even know why DHS has criteria at all, as there is no requirement or burden to prove anything on the part of the alien.”

As an example Crane offered a recent case in which an illegal alien facing multiple violent criminal charges in El Paso was released under the policy. Without any question and without any investigation, the illegal immigrant was ordered freed, Crane said. Homeland Security officials said “he’s a dreamer, release him,” according to Crane, who assures the new policies are compromising public safety.

The federal agent denounced the new Obama immigration program at a Senate press conference along with longtime Border Patrol agent George McCubbin, who is also president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing more than 17,000 border agents and personnel. McCubbin slammed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for assuring that the border is as secure as it has ever been. She “conveniently forgot to ask the men and women on the front line,” McCubbin said, adding that DHS has made it impossible for agents to do their jobs.

Earlier this month the nation’s largest local Border Patrol Union, located in Tucson Arizona, blasted DHS for ordering federal agents patrolling the Mexican border to “run away” and “hide” when encountering a shooter. The directive could not have come at a worst time because Mexican drug-cartel violence is at an all-time high along the southern border and some portions have been taken over by heavily armed traffickers.

This horrible woman has no shame.
Nancy Pelosi told a bunch of ignorant college kids at the George Soros-funded Campus Progress convention that President Obama “has signed many expansions of freedom” into law. Like say, Obamacare, for instance… Or, his farm bill that forces farmers to cut down on dust… Or, even his energy bills that force coal plants to shut down in favor of failed green projects.It’s like “freedom” is oozing from his socialist pores.

Pelosi, speaking at a youth conference hosted by the George Soros funded Campus Progress, said the President’s work with health care best illustrates his agenda to increase civil liberties for American citizens. She told an audience of more than 600 college students last week that President Obama has signed many “expansions of freedom” into law since he took office in 2008.

“Central to all is the Affordable Care Act, which we think is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” said Pelosi. “A healthier life, for liberty, to pursue your happiness.”

The former Speaker also listed new laws pertaining to hate crimes and Don’t Ask Don’t tell as examples of legislation that has expanded American freedoms.

However, others are skeptical of Pelosi’s claim that President Obama has increased civil liberties for Americans.

Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington University, authored an op-ed in the Los Angeles times recently arguing that President Obama has been “a disaster for civil liberties.”

“While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for civil liberties, but the civil liberties cause in the United States,” wrote Turley.

At the conference, Pelosi also argued that America’s founding fathers risked their lives to “create a democracy” where “the voice and the vote and the many determining the outcome of elections.”

Dr. Robert Jeffrey, professor of Government and Constitutional Law at Wofford College, disagrees. He argues that the founders established a republic where the liberties of the few would be protected against the will of the majority.

“Madison made it clear in the 10th Federalist that we were instituting a republic, not a democracy.” Jeffrey told Campus Reform. “In a republic, the rule of the majority is checked by the rule of law – in our republic, that check is the Constitution.”

In 2008 The LA Times withheld a video that contained footage of Barack Obama celebrating with a group of Palestinians who were openly hostile towards Israel. Barack Obama reportedly even gave a toast to a former PLO operative, Rashid Khalidi, at this celebration. This was something the LA Times hid from the American public before the election. The media refused to release the video.
Terrorist Bill Ayers, Barack Obama and his good friend Jew-hater Rashid Khalidi

Last year Stanley Kurtz figured out a great way to trick the media into releasing the Obama-Khalidi tape – by tricking them into thinking it would be bad for Sarah Palin.
Via Instapundit:

“I posted some thoughts on the media’s Palin/Obama paper-trail hypocrisy last Friday. Around the same time, Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft highlighted the continued refusal of the LA Times to release the unseen but nonetheless famous video tape in which Obama toasted Rashid Khalidi at a testimonial dinner likely also addressed by Bill Ayers. . . . Will we ever get to see that tape, and if so, how best to shake it loose?” Er, convince ‘em it would be bad for Sarah Palin?

Today Breitbart announced a new strategy.
The conservative website is offering a $50,000 reward to whomever can provide the complete video recording of the 2003 farewell party for radical Palestinian academic and activist Rashid Khalidi.
Terrific.

Just another example that the problem is on both sides. Congress controls the purse strings to Obamacare. They don’t need the Senate on this one.

Determined as always to travel the safest, least contentious path to their own re-election, House Speaker John Boehner, Majority leader Eric Cantor and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy have decided that the Party will do NOTHING to defund ObamaCare when current, federal funding legislation expires on September 30th.

Thirty times over the past two years the House has voted to repeal the President’s “Affordable” Care Act. Of course, on each occasion Republican leaders were secure in the knowledge that the measure had NO chance of passing the Democrat controlled Senate or collecting the signature of Barack Obama. And this was of supreme importance to these stout-hearted, GOP Representatives as it meant none of the scheduled votes would raise the ire of the Party’s most feared and potent foe—the dreaded national media.

For were the landmark legislation of their Marxist icon to REALLY be threatened by some Republican scheme, the New York Times and its left-wing colleagues might spend the rest of these pre-election months trying to discredit Republican candidates with all manner of vile half-truths and dishonest reporting, something the media would NEVER do without good cause!

Yet weak knees on the part of Republican leadership should come as no surprise to interested conservatives as we were warned by Iowa Congressman Peter King last year that “…the decision was made by leadership to avoid the prospect of a showdown with the president or Harry Reid that could result in a potential shutdown of government.” (1)

And it was in February that John Boehner nearly suffered whiplash, ducking a reporter’s question about the congressman’s ObamaCare funding intentions in an upcoming budget resolution. Boehner’s non-answer answer: “We are opposed to Obamacare. We have voted to repeal it. That also included $700 million in tax hikes, about $2.6 trillion in new spending. We’re going to continue to take all the actions that we can to make sure that we do not ruin the best health care delivery system in the world, bankrupt our nation and, most importantly, get in the way of job creation in America.”

But apparently the Speaker and his colleagues are NOT so opposed to ObamaCare or worried about job creation that they are willing to rescind the $80 billion or so earmarked for the “healthcare” law by the last congress, or the $115 billion already authorized for “additional appropriation.” (2)

One hundred and twenty seven House Republicans signed a letter addressed to Boehner and Cantor by Michelle Bachman and Jim Jordan. In it they wrote, “…we urge you not to bring to the House floor in the 112th Congress any legislation that provides or allows funds to implement ObamaCare…” “We also urge you to take legislative steps necessary to immediately rescind all ObamaCare implementation funds.” (3)

House leadership has the authority to legislatively package ObamaCare funding in any manner it wishes. Were they to place it with truly necessary “must pass” funding legislation, it would force Senate Democrats to make a very dodgy political decision before the election. As Congressman King puts it, Democrats would have… to “…defend Obamacare as more important than all of the rest of the functions of government combined.” (1)

But once again, John Boehner and the other shining pillars of Republican resolve are intent upon snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. For although the American public is solidly in favor of Republicans defunding ObamaCare, political caution MUST take precedence over the Constitution or a congressional oath of office!

Should Obama win in November, expect Speaker Boehner to be provided round-the-clock, Secret Service protection. Barack couldn’t afford anything happening to one of his most valued supporters.

The first time critizing Islam is criminalized there will be a lawsuit….we have freedom of speech here in the US and the Muslims aren’t taking it away from us or our politicians. If they try they’ll be voted out of office next time and their law struck down in court as unconstitutional. What are they thinking of? Using the excuse of ‘hate speech’ to restrict the 1st amendment. Most Americans are on to that game.

In refusing to rule out a future law that would criminalize criticism of religion as racist hate speech, the Department of Justice has left the door open to the prospect of Shariah-style law in the United States that would forbid criticism of Islam.

During a House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz) questioned Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez on whether the Justice Department would ever consider banning free speech critical of religion.

“Will you tell us here today simply that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” asked Franks.

Perez replied by asking for context before Franks repeated the question, adding, “That’s not a hard question.”

Perez then tried to add the context of “when you make threats against someone,” but Franks stuck to his original question and repeated it for a third time.

“Again sir, if you have a proposal that you are considering, we will actively review that proposal,” responded Perez.

“OK, here’s my proposal. I’m asking you to answer a question, that’s my proposal. I’m proposing you answer this question,” said Franks, before repeating the question for a fourth time.

Perez again refused to answer the question, asking for more context.

Perez’ evasive response clearly indicates that the Department of Justice under the Obama administration would consider a law that would override the First Amendment and classify criticism of religion as racist hate speech.

The mere fact that Perez refused to rule it out is shocking.

As the New American reports, in October 2011, “Perez and other officials from the Justice Department attended a meeting at George Washington University where a an Egyptian-American lawyer suggested criminalizing speech against Islam.”

Muslim scholars argue that under the terms of the Koran, insulting the Prophet Muhammad is a sin punishable by execution.

One commenter suggested Warren and Obama “run for office in China and leave America to the capitalists.”

In an ad that played during the opening ceremony of the London Olympics, Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren suggested the United States be more like Communist China, the New York Sun reported Monday.

“We’ve got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren’t we rebuilding America?” Warren asked. “Our competitors are putting people to work, building a future. China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We’re at just 2.4%. We can do better.”

The New York Sun added:

The ad juxtaposes robust Chinese cranes and dump trucks with decaying American bridges and idle but sympathetic-looking American workers wearing hard-hats.

The Sun also noted that Warren – a candidate for the U.S. Senate – was the inspiration for Barack Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment, and the President has been “making similar points about infrastructure on the campaign trail.”

Ira Stoll was not impressed with Warren’s message.

“Professor Warren’s approach is so flawed that it’s amazing that her campaign would spend the money on putting it into a prime-time Olympics commercial that was presumably designed not to alienate people but rather to get them to vote for her. You really have to see it to believe it.”

For starters, to reach the 9 percent Chinese level, Stoll wrote that the government would have to spend an “additional $1 trillion a year.”

“To put it in context,” he said, “the entire federal government spent about $3.6 trillion in 2011, on revenues of about $2.3 trillion.”

Considering that Warren has already promised massive tax increases to pay for deficit reduction, Stoll said she would need to either eliminate “all national defense spending ($705 billion) or all Social Security spending ($730 billion) and then find another more than quarter trillion dollars.”

He also observed that America has been building roads and bridges for many years, unlike China.

Finally, he notes that China, unlike the United States, is not a free country.

Well of course the Democrats introduced this bill. Folks they are using this shooting in Aurora Colorado to severely restrict our 2nd amendment. While the government buys millions of rounds of 40 cal. hollow points, they are limiting us. Is something wrong with this picture? I going to add that I think this shooting was staged in order to attack the 2nd amendment. That’s just mine and many other’s opinon from looking at the facts.Holmes was under the “care of a psychiatrist”, a Ex-US Air Force Doctor, how did he pass the background checks to get the weapons that he bought “legally”? Gun sales are still booming and probably will continue. Thank you founding fathers.

The Democratic-led Senate has not voted on any gun legislation in three years, since defeating a 2009 GOP measure that would have required states to recognize each other’s gun laws.

Two Democratic lawmakers on Monday will announce new legislation to regulate the online and mail-order sale of ammunition.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.) said the new law would make the sale of ammunition “safer for law-abiding Americans who are sick and tired of the ease with which criminals can now anonymously stockpile for mass murder,” in a statement released Saturday.

The lawmakers cite the recent movie massacre in Aurora, Colo. for spurring their bill.

Lautenberg and McCarthy, who will unveil their new proposal at New York’s City Hall say they intend to “make it harder for criminals to anonymously stockpile ammunition through the Internet.”

Lautenberg and McCarthy are two high profile advocates of gun control legislation, but they face an uphill struggle in Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last week that he does not intend to bring gun control legislation to the floor and President Obama has been reluctant to press lawmakers to act on the issue in an election year.

(So people, this tells you if Obama gets a 2nd term it’s Katie bar the door on all kinds of legislation (especially the 2nd amendment), unconstitutional legisilation I would imagine. But that hasn’t stopped him so far, )unconstitutional or not.)

Democratic senators though have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity magazines by some consumers. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) defended it last Thursday as a “reasonable” gun control measure.